August 19, 2011

The market is dispirited. I'm wondering if the president is, too, and if that won't carry implications for the 2012 race. You can imagine him having lunch with political advisers, hearing some unwanted advice — "Don't go to Martha's Vineyard!" — putting his napkin by his plate, pushing back from the table, rising, and saying in a clipped, well-modulated voice: "I'm tired. I'm going. If they want this job so much let them have it."

That's not the scenario I have in my head. I don't think Obama has anybody urging him to do or not do one thing or another. I think they are all on the same page, and the page is 2012. And when you look at August 2011 from Spring/Summer/Fall 2012, one more vacation isn't going to seem like much of anything. The economy will matter, but not what it was in August 2011, what it is now. Whatever it is, people will hold Obama responsible, so right now, he's hoping things will be better enough that he'll have something to claim credit for.

Could he do something right now, in August 2011, that will make the economy better at that future point, something that will be more effective than biking and golfing on Martha's Vineyard? I don't think he can, and if he doesn't think he can, in my book, that's a point in his favor. Spare me your programs and clever ideas. I like getting some evidence that he knows the limits of government.

Obama's presidency is about getting reelected, and doing nothing right now fits that agenda just fine. I don't know how tired he is, but it doesn't matter. He should rest. Lie low. Do some fundraising... even though he already has a billion dollars. Don't waste your energy in futile gestures at doing something about the economy you don't know how to fix. Be cool. The cool Obama was good enough in '08....

... and it can be good enough in '12, if the economy heals itself a bit and the Republicans stumble over each other. There's nothing to get excited about now...

387 comments:

He may get a break soon. Looks like Gad-Daffy is losing his grip in Libya. Expect a full victory lap.

Personally I do not have any problem with a rich guy and his family vacationing in the Vineyard in August. Even rich, shitty presidents are permitted a family vacation. He will not win or lose on this issue. Nor do I expect him to be easy to beat in 2012.

What he could do is rein in the regulations that are strangling people. It wouldn't be a panacea, but it would be a concrete step to show people that he knows the power of the federal government and that overuse of that power is one of the things hampering economic growth.

It just doesn't mesh with his rigid ideology however. So it is a non-starter, in his view.

Don't give him a pass on recognizing the limits of his power, that's cheap and easy. Think about all of the tools at his dispoal.

He jets off to the Vineyard while the EPA debates economy crushing regulations.

Those images of Obama all suggested there was something very profound in his mind. Some kind of awesome idea people just were amazed with.

But there wasn't. He couldn't even stay consistent from one crowd to the next.

But it's like everyone thought Obama must be brilliant because everyone else saw it. They didn't want to be the idiot who couldn't see it! The emperor has no clothes. Just a sweet painting. I bet Obama's library is damn sweet. And lacks much information.

It's not that he's just taking a vacation, it's that he never stops talking about how hard he's working and how the evil rich (read: Martha's Vineyard vacationers) are destroying the country on purpose. His presumption that American voters have the memories of fruit flies will eventually work against him.

When the NYT is running stories eviscerating the "green jobs" panacea (because that's exactly what it is to these people) just days after POTUS gave a speech at a "green jobs" plant, it doesn't exactly bode well for his morale.

Green jobs was supposed to be the internet-burst of this century and it's turning out to be mostly a bust. At $2 million a job, with some companies actually cutting back on so-called green jobs, and ample evidence from overseas that it just doesn't work as touted, I'd see we can almost put a fork in this one.

Rememeber Ann, he's planning a speech in 3 weeks about jobs and the economy and specifics of how he's going to turn things around.

Implicitly, he's telling people, "I can do something about this. But first, a nice long vacation."

It won't affect much come a year from now, but it DOES reinforce the image he's earned in peoples'minds - this is a leadershipless president who likes to give speeches and then walk away from problems. He likes to blame others and then take a vacation.

He may not be able to do anything about the economy in truth - but doing nothing simply reinforces his leadershipless style.

Oh spare me Ann. Reading this Ode the the president I swear I just threw up in my mouth a little. Blech.. There is PLENTY he could do to help the economy in the next 15 months. He's just so ideologically disconnected with what those things are that it's impossible for him. He's standing in a corner with wet paint all around him.

Peggy Noonan is and always has been a dope and a ninny. Her affectedly langorous and breathy voice grates like little else in the modern media landscape.

I'll see your Peggy Noonan and raise you Dianne Rehm. I can't listen to her without instantly envisioning the head-on-a-slinky-era Kate Hepburn. Add to it that she takes twice as long as normal to say anything and I get the impression we're dealing with a stroke victim.

Could he do something right now, in August 2011, that will make the economy better at that future point, something that will be more effective than biking and golfing on Martha's Vinyard? I don't think he can, and if he doesn't think he can, in my book, that's a point in his favor.

With four phone calls, all completely within his authority, he could turn the jobs mess around in a day. In a day.

1. Call the EPA and order them to stop all their job-killing attacks on energy and other industries.

2. Call the NLRB and order them to stop all their job-killing attacks on manufacturing and other industries.

3. Call the HHS and order them to stop all their job-killing attacks on health insurance and any industry that purchases health insurance.

4. Call whoever it is that regulates oil drilling -- Department of Interior? -- and order them to stop all their job-killing attacks on oil and other industries.

The radical Democrats would revolt, and probably primary him. The Independents would flock back to him in waves. The Republican candidates would lose many of their big agenda points. And jobs would pick up, and private and industrial spending would pick up, and the stock market would go through the roof, and the dollar would gain strength, and he would win in 2012 in a landslide.

He could make those four calls from his cell phone while riding his bike. In 20 minutes, he could turn this country AND his Presidency completely around.

But he would have to admit he was wrong, and he would have to learn from his mistakes. He hasn't yet demonstrated the ability to do either.

wv: weedula. What you're smoking if you think President Arugula would ever even consider such a simple plan.

This is what thousands of other AAs did in Atlanta. I have heard Martha's Vineyard is where the elite AAs who made it big in this world go to play. Somewhere it has to hurt all those AAs standing in the hot sun in Atlanta to know where he is and what he is doing, especially after they all gave him their 100% loyalty. So yeah, by all accounts it does look like he has given up if he is this insensitive.

Cool and calm. The adult in the room. Rising above the fray. God-like.

You know you've got the world by the balls when "leading from behind" means a leadership so advanced and sophisticated John Q. Public could not possible comprehend it, and would be utter folly to even try.

Side note:

I had to re-write this comment; less pithier than the first.

When signing in to my Google account after the preview, Google would not let me post until I provided my phone number.

Could he do something right now, in August 2011, that will make the economy better at that future point, something that will be more effective than biking and golfing on Martha's Vinyard? I don't think he can,

Could he do something right now, in August 2011, that will make the economy better at that future point, something that will be more effective than biking and golfing on Martha's Vinyard?

Sure he could. He doesn't need to come up with some grand government scheme that will cost US taxpayers more money.

How about some gestures to promote tourism to the US or the export of US products overseas? The dollar is low and Obama is popular in Europe and other affluent areas of the world. So, how about a road trip on Highway 66 wearing Levis on a Harley while listening to country music on his Ipod? All food stops would be at US chains with a heavy overseas presence.

Of course, this won't improve the economy by itself, but every little bit helps and the most critical component is the perception that something is being done that is moving things in a positive direction.

1. Ms. Althouse, you're drinking the Kool Aid and prepping the battlespace for another vote in 2012--that you'll be apologizing for in 2013;

2. Cookie--Peggy Noonan as a writer is an exemplar of how many frogs you'll have to kiss before you find a pearl of wisdom in what she says. But as for vapid stupidity, I'll see you Peggy Noonan and raise you Maureen Dowd. And if you "kiss the Noonan frog" often enough sometimes you'll find something worth reading--not very often, but sometimes.

3. Obama has at least a 50% chance of re-election if--and only if--he goes into a defensive crouch, says and does nothing and waits for the Republicans to find some way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2012. And there's a good chance they'll do just that.On the other hand there's no chance that the vapid Bozo in the Oval Office is smart enough to just shut up for 15 months. That ain't gonna happen.

Obama really could get the economy rolling again. It's just not realistic that he would.

He does own the malaise we're in. And I think his stated intentions in 2008 mean so do his supporters to some extent.

Obamacare does deviate from his promises, but it was clear from the start his plan would be burdensome to employers and planning. His promise to cut the deficit while increasing spending was another sign of trouble.

Repeal Obamacare along and you'll see unemployment fall. A tax holiday of some kind could help as well. Keep regulation stable instead of endlessly political and reactive, and that will help a whole lot.

In other words, it's true that government cannot save the economy. If Obama has accepted that (he hasn't) then he can also face that government can indeed destroy an economy, and it certainly is doing so right now.

His options include doing a 180 on policy. Come back with all kinds of deregulation, employer and investment tax cuts (without nullifying strings attached), open up the country to energy exploration, etc.

That could make him a 2 term President. The left will not vote for a Republican no matter what, and the independents with the fence up their ass every election would mostly go with him again, rather than the racist baby eater that Perry will be portray as.

I don't expect him to do this, but he will tack back to the right quite bit. Even his base is screaming for jobs, and even they know now that they aren't going to come from the government.

I'm going to assume that this is more too-subtle Althouse humor that needs a /sarc tag.

Or that you're tossing some liberal chum into the water to try to attract back some of the liberal commenters you used to have before they were beaten down, humiliated, and driven from this place. Which wouldn't a bad idea, that was great fun.

But if you seriously believe: "I like getting some evidence that he knows the limits of government", after what we've seen in the last 2 years...then you've lost your mind.

I'm probably not the only commenter here who runs a small business. I'm sure I'm speaking for many of us when I say we've managed to hang on by our fingernails for the last two years in spite of being targeted by this administration's war on small business. And we've hung on by sacrificing family and leisure time, while this guy's lived like a goddamned king.

If you're trying to chum for Ritzy Brassiere and LE Lee, try something negative about the Republicans. Call Palin stupid again. It will be more effective, and it won't make me smack myself in the forehead for reading your blog.

Yeah, sure! It is all predictable. Ann says in her most endearing way (a la Marilyn Monroe): Enjoy the summer, Mr. President! , you know, because she voted for him and that sets us off as a skin irritant and we itch. Great for traffic.

In a time of crisis leaders remain on deck. It may be more Kabuki than necessary but they remain at their posts. Think Churchill. There is no reason the President can't send his family to MV and have him take a long weekend there, or two. But in the current climate it would be better for us all if he could display some leadership attributes even if faked.

"Vacations are the things you look back on with fondness when you're middle-aged.

I loved our trips to the ocean (NC & NJ) when I was growing up."

Yep, we spend 2 weeks a year at either the Jersey or Virgina shore. Absolutely some of the best memories of my life. That and college, which I think was really fun, but it's kind of foggy.

Being a Presidential child is not something I would choose for myself or my children. Some of the best things about childhood are what you get into and discover on your own without supervision. That stuff can never happen for Presidential kids, and eight years is a whole childhood.

You wouldn't see an EMP explosion if a horde of undead dropped it on your head...before eating said head

I wouldn’t see it, because Zombies are an over-rated threat….But I find your obsession with them, “LIVISM”….you know a prejudice against the UNDEAD…ALMOST as bad a Racism…you and the Koch Brothers would probably hunt Black Zombies for fun….African-American Zombie BABIES.

Could he do something right now, in August 2011, that will make the economy better at that future point.

He could, but he won't.

"The costs associated with taxation are readily apparent, the insidious extension of the regulatory state imposes an equally onerous cost on citizens. Last year, the average American worked 74 days to pay off the cost of regulation."

http://www.fiscalaccountability.org/index.php?content=08042011fc#

"Employment at federal regulatory agencies has grown by more than 5%. By comparison, private sector jobs only rose by about 1.5% over the same period. That suggests regulatory intensity is still rising, even as the recovery lags."

But I sure am glad that he's taking this vacation. Because it means that he now knows the limits of government.

The only way to limit government is to get away from it for a little while. If you are in the White House, the chefs will not give you dinner each night until you've written 270 new regulations and come up with 10 ways to spend more money. It's exhausting.

I'm usually of the same bend because the economy is so complicated ...

Let's put it this way I went to classes taught by an economist who had a nationally syndicated column.

Not Krugman.

The guy was brilliant-and I think the most brilliant thing he ever said-because the guy was humble and hot-(I digress)-was this:

Economics is an art form because you can rarely know all the variables.

I'm paraphrasing-it was many moons ago.

One example of economist not "knowing it all" is -

Stagflation.

The "uniqueness" of that according to him was an example of how economics is not a science.

Now see how that contrasts greatly from-

Give us $800 billion and we can keep unemployment at 8% or lower.

The arrogance of that is astounding.

And yes, I do think the Obama administration-the advisors Obama appointed have done something so monumentally arrogant on a scale no other President in history has ever-"spent" that I do go past my normal laissez-faire stance.

The American people have a right, hell a duty to hold them accountable.

Hell anyone who gambles in Vegas-off the street knows better than to pick a specific number.

Brilliance is knowing that you don't know everything you cannot predict everything-and that is where Obama and his Administrations is a catastrophic failure.

And I dare say that Ann's vote for Obama is predicated on some superior knowledge that she knew exactly how everything would pan out and rolled the bones on Obama.

"Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual “Regulator’s Budget,” compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

That’s at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.

Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%."

Lie low. Do some fundraising... even though he already has a billion dollars.

With, of course, credit card verification turned off, and a lot of bundling from who knows whom.

One of the biggest unreported scandals of the 2008 election was how he raised all that money - much of it was raised after his campaign turned off credit card verification. That is why he contributions for many of the Disney characters at one time, or entire football teams, even though players on those teams are active Republicans.

I had always thought that that money was coming from over seas - and some of it probably was. But a good chunk was apparently coming from labor unions. Which, of course, was illegal, but who was going to investigate? The Holder Justice Department?

Well, with that success from the last election as a guide, and the fact that the LSM was totally uninterested in investigating or reporting this, he is on-track for another record fund raising.

Cook above essentially asked who Obama really represents. And, the answer is mostly those who paid for his election and are paying for his reelection. This means foreign countries, unions, Wall Street, trial lawyers, etc. Remember, he came out of Chicago politics, and this is how politics is done there.

"Could he do something right now, in August 2011, that will make the economy better at that future point"

Holy Cow. Three years in, this economy is where it is because of his policies. There's lots he could do that, given a year, would make a difference. But they aren't things he's willing to do, so in that sense, you're right. His vacation doesn't matter.

I don't give Clinton credit for "the economy" in 1998, I don't blame Bush for "the economy" in 2007, and I don't blame Obama for "the economy" in 2011.

5/4/11 7:28 PM------------------

Funny, you should ask me that. Because I came back here to precisely address that comment by Meade. People who are technologically ignorant make the assertion that Clinton does not deserve any credit for the economy. They forget that Gore's legislation on 'Information Superhighway (remember that?)' and Clinton signing it into law are what propelled the technological revolution of the 90s (the Internet as you know it today) and the roaring economy that it resulted in. For those of us immersed in the research and development that went on during that decade it is fascinating. America is the beacon of research and innovation and 90s were the big face of it. Read up on the history of the Internet (google Leonard Kleinrock and Internet history). BTW, DARPA has been the big incubator ever of all the research and innovation in this country. Small government, my foot. Smart government, yes!

David started the thread with Personally I do not have any problem with a rich guy and his family vacationing in the Vineyard in August. Even rich, shitty presidents are permitted a family vacation.

My problem is that he is not rich, and is living way beyond their means on other people's money. From whence does their wealth come? A few short years ago he was a community organizer and part time teacher of law, she was a hospital VP. That is upper middle class, not rich. He hasn't been in big politics long enough to graft that much money.

They are acting like clueless rubes who won the lottery and gleefully spend, while Granny is back home barely keeping a roof over her head.

The optics are bad. Us rubes may not be classy, but we know when class is lacking. Obama ain't classy.

madawaskan, I agree completely. Economics is like meteorology, in that sense; local forecasts are possible, but even they're based on probabilities, and the farther out you go in time, the fuzzier it gets.

The thing that irks me most about the Democrats' economic theorizing is the fact that they're using patently absurd reasoning -- it's as if the weatherman predicted rain every time the humidity went below 50% and the barometer climbed. Or snow when the temperature gets above 100 deg F.

Example: They seriously believe that paying more unemployment benefits is stimulative. They think that the more you pay to people who have no job, the more jobs will be created. Just think, if we had 30% unemployment, then the economy would be running like a freight train.

It's a take-home pay cut, I should have been more explicit, as a result of increasing the employee contribution to health care and retirement. We've lost furlough days, however, which was an 8-day/year pay cut -- I think that's 3% -- so that's a plus.

Obama found time before going on vacay on the tony Vineyard to issue an order regarding Federal worker "diversity" (racial bean-counting), but deferred issuing a plan to increase the overall number of jobs until sometime in September. This at a time when the Federal workforce is reportedly 39% ethnic minority.

The question I suppose is whether this is more a reflection of the administration’s priorities (vote buying) or of its core competencies.

"I'm not sure how big it'll be -- somewhere between 5 and 10%, I think. I'll keep you all posted so you can by sympathetic to my plight."

Where I work, that would be considered great. Our employees took cuts between 100%(layoffs) down to a minimum of 20%. I took a 50% cut. That was 2 years ago, The employees that were retained have completely recovered their pay now and are getting raises again.

Private employees had to react to the market, now it's the public sector's turn, but we took the brunt of it and cushioned the blow while continuing to pay those public salaries. Unfortunately, it got wasted, now we may have to do it all over again. I say the public sector bites the bullet this time. Besides, they never contribute to my pay, it's the other way around. No justice - No peace!

What is a "furlough day"? I used to get 8 sick days a year, but if you used 5 of them, you were called into the office and asked what was going on with all the sick days. The company I worked for helped with our purchasing of health care, but we paid for about half of it.

His whole history is about becoming something, not being something. That is, he always wanted to win the next prize (state senator, US Senator, President). He was never interested in actually doing the job, just getting it. Therefore, I wouldn't be suprised if he decided not to run for reelection (not that I expect that to happen).

Read up on the history of the Internet (google Leonard Kleinrock and Internet history). BTW, DARPA has been the big incubator ever of all the research and innovation in this country.

Will do but people at the Pentagon have a different version of that I suspect...

******

Pastafarian

Example: They seriously believe that paying more unemployment benefits is stimulative. They think that the more you pay to people who have no job, the more jobs will be created. Just think, if we had 30% unemployment, then the economy would be running like a freight train.

Actually, it seemed pretty clear at the time. The Fed was concentrating on interest rates, and using money creation to try to keep them down. The idea was that if supply of money was up, the price would drop. And, this worked somewhat for short periods of time. The problem for them was that one of the components of interest rates is inflationary expectations, and inflating the money supply had the apparently unintended (but entirely predictable) result of increasing inflation. Worse, once they got on this track, it was a vicious cycle until they switched to concentrating on the size of the money supply. And, bango, inflation stopped fairly quickly - but too late to save Carter's reelection chances.

Inflation in small doses gives the appearance of increased wealth, and so people spend more. But that is really only when people don't realize that inflation is really taking off. Very quickly you get into 12% mortgage loans and the like, and the economy starts to tank. (And, yes, deflation has the opposite short term effect).

And, everyone is horrified when Republicans like Perry, Bachmann, et al. rail about the Fed and their quantitative easing? About all the money they have been creating to keep interest rates down?

Right now, this week, the President can stomp on the NLRB and allow Boeing's SC plant opening to proceed. He can comply with multiple judicial orders to restart the permitting process for oil/gas exploration/production. He can agree repeal both the individual mandate and the guaranteed issue provisions of Obamacare.

Yes, these are things Republicans want him to do. Ironically they're also the things that can get him reelected, because they're the only policies that have a chance of positively affecting the economy.

Clinton figured this out: to get reelected you need good ideas, and a great way to find good ideas is to steal them from your political opponents.

First Lady Michelle Obama Slipped out of Washington unnoticed Monday for a secret trip to visit her brother, Oregon State University men’s basketball coach Craig Robinson, at his home on Corvallis, Ore.

Mrs. Obama reportedly jetted into the Eugene Airport, landing at about 11 am PDT. She and family members then headed out in a 11 vehicle motorcade for the ride to Corvallis.

The White House has so far said little about the trip, which was unannounced. It’s unclear how long the vacation will last.

Mrs. Obama and family members flew on a Boeing C-40B, the military version of a 737 that serves as Air Force 2.

Mrs. Obama has in the past incurred criticism for her travels, including an early departure for her most recent Hawaiian vacation and a luxurious 2010 trip to Spain. Most of the costs of her travel are borne by taxpayers.

The C-40B included a flight crew of eight to 10 people, according to one report. Mrs. Obama is traveling with one of her daughters – it’s unclear which one – and her mother.

President Obama remains on his own in Washington, where today he is headed over to Dover Air Force Base to honor the fallen soldiers who died in a Taliban attack on their chopper Saturday.

If the government was smart enough to cause the economic growth of the internet in the 90's? Why don't those geniuses just do it again. Clinton and Gore are still out there with ideas. Lets just ask them what to do and do it, then sit back and drink margaritas. I think we all would vote for that. Just pass a law and start the blender.

BTW, I had no idea those two guys wrote code, for Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Yahoo, and all the rest.

Everybody knows he "coasts" or "dithers." So when his enemies talk about him ... they don't see any strengths.

Doesn't mean the man's unelectable.

To the contrary. Jimmy Carter, after he lost his Evangelicals. After "born-again" went meaningless, because people didn't get birthday parties to go with the "coming through the passage" experience ...

Obama's approach may be better than the other politicians in DC. Ya know. Boehner's on vacation. And, what good, exactly, did the "debt ceiling lift" actually do?

Ann just follows the WaPo lead; vacation is only a problem when BUSH does it! (h/t Taranto)"By the time President Bush returns to Washington on Labor Day after the longest presidential vacation in 32 years, he will have spent all or part of 54 days since the inauguration at his parched but beloved ranch.... "--Washington Post, Aug. 7, 2001 (not available online)

"If it's August, it must be time for that annual Washington political tradition: griping over the president's vacation. Through wars and natural disasters, recessions and reelections, the getaway locales for America's chief executive have been dissected by critics looking for symbolic reasons why the president shouldn't go."--Washington Post, Aug. 16, 2011

>>My problem is that he is not rich, and is living way beyond their means on other people's money. From whence does their wealth come? A few short years ago he was a community organizer and part time teacher of law, she was a hospital VP. That is upper middle class, not rich. He hasn't been in big politics long enough to graft that much money<<

"I like getting some evidence that he knows the limits of government."

This is perhaps the most delusional thing I've ever read on this blog. From any commenter. Even ones who seemed insane. Or didn't speak English. Or thought they were dogs. Or talked about their poop.

This does pretty much confirm that Althouse will find some way to convince herself to vote for Obama in 2012 even if the country is on fire and sinking into the ocean and Obama has gone insane and is driving around DC in a tank shooting red headed people.

If you read this post with an eye for cleverness, it's as though Althouse is saying Noonan is 100% correct. Obama has indeed given up.

Sure, someone unlike Obama could lead this country to a recovery, but Obama cannot and will not, so he's quit.

I could care less if he took an occasional vacation, but anyone saying it's hysterical to criticize Obama's schedule is being unfair. He's spent an awful lot of time not doing his job, raising funds, golfing, and on vacation. It's a display.

Reading Ann's post here put me in mind of something: "POLICE! POLICE!", followed by "Well I don't really want him arrested, after all I'm a professor at the college."

Jesus. This little bastard (Barry O'Bama) has almost destroyed this country from top to bottom, and she's posting "just be cool...it's enough to just be cool."

It gets harder and harder to read this stuff. And not just from her. I don't think people who aren't somehow part of it can really understand or appreciate how much anger there is in the country toward this little half-bred half-wit.

Gotta love the screaming meemies falling back on the "all Presidents do it..." defense. These are, of course, the same simps who are always telling us how "special" and unique Obama is. So which is it? Is he just one more President or is he the "Lightbringer" the Left advertised?

Funny, you should ask me that. Because I came back here to precisely address that comment by Meade. People who are technologically ignorant make the assertion that Clinton does not deserve any credit for the economy. They forget that Gore's legislation on 'Information Superhighway (remember that?)' and Clinton signing it into law are what propelled the technological revolution of the 90s (the Internet as you know it today) and the roaring economy that it resulted in

Um, abjectly false.First, you don't even know the name of the legislation (shocking, I know).

Secondly, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was written by a Republican Congress.

Third, President George H.W Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. Are you giving him credit?

Fourth, In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill:

Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.

I do detect some ironizing in Althouse's election coverage lately. If so, she's playing a deep game. That would be fine; it's rather fun actually. But I find it hard to believe she confuses Rick Perry with Dirty Harry, even for two nanoseconds.

On vacations: I have no in-principle objection if a President wants to spend 3 1/2 years of the term out at Camp David. Scenic, secluded, and I'm sure they have every amenity for surviving WWIII, mock-up Cabinet room and everything.

I'm really not so sure a President out at Martha's Vineyard, or even on his ranch, is so effective. Tho at least if it were an actual *home* they could have a lot of stuff set up.

I do feel Michelle has a vast sense of entitlement & wants to milk out this First Lady thing to live her "Harper's Bazaar" fantasies of the successful gold-digger's lifestyle (and HB accepts golddigger as a full-time employment).

When you work on externally funded grants, as I do, and have things you have to get done, as per the contract between the funding agency and the University, having an enforced day of non-productivity is a complication. Doyle used them to "balance" the budget. We were required to take 8 per year for the two-year budget cycle ending last June.

So don't feel too bad.

Pastafarian, I don't. We don't live in excess of our means, thank goodness. It's a change that requires getting used to is all.

I would rather have him on vacation than doing any of the things he or his advisers might come up with.

I would rather he stay on vacation until January 2013 than do any of the things he's philosophically capable of doing between now and then.

The only things that can help are things out of his control (a whole continent of Eurocrats looking for a nice place for a crash-landing) or things he lacks the intellectual flexibility to do (reining in the regulatory establishment he's created).

Prof. Ann-You make some good points. However, the image people have of Obama is formed over time. Unless the economy drastically improves (in which case he wins) or totally tanks (in which case he will lose) the election will be somewhat influenced by how people view Obama. Presidential, in command.... or as an out of touch politician who can not do much of anything except talk.Going to Marthas Vineyard contributes to the out of touch persona. Particularly, if Obama tries to run as the common man-one of us- against Washington. His image as the common man doesn't jive with the fancy vacations him and his family continue to take while the rest of America is hurting.He can win easily if the economy drastically improves. That is so unlikely so his handlers should be concerned with his image which has already been formed in the eyes of many Americans

As far as the '90s tech boom, I'm just happy that the government (on both sides of the aisle) was far too slow to understand the magnitude of what was going on. If they had any clue what the internet and microtech would turn into, government oversight would have been far more restrictive out of the gate.

or as an out of touch politician who can not do much of anything except talk

I fully expect more of the same platitudes that he gave us during the debt ceiling debate. Nothing concrete. Frankly, short of an announcement by POTUS that aliens have landed on the White House lawn and need immigrant labor back home, I don't think this speech will a) affect much and b) come anywhere near living up to the hype it's going to build up between now and then.

Yet another unforced error by this administration in a long litany of dropped balls and overthrows.

"Poor Cookie, still blaming his shit life on every one with a nickel more than he has."

Actually, I have a fortunate life and am able to pay my bills and maintain sustenance and shelter, with a little money left over.

However, my Republican parents raised me with a respect for fair play and honesty, and so it chaps my ass to see the swinish crooks who populate the boardrooms of the big banks and Wall Street steal the wealth of the nation's working people--who are becoming fewer by the month, to the cheers of Wall Street--while howling like starving cats at the mere suggestion they be asked to join the rest of us in the "austerity programs" we're all being softened up to endure, (or even to just play fair and square).

So, pathetically, I actually believe in the myth of "truth, justice and the American way," rather than the brutal wolf-eat-sheep or shooting-fish-in-a-barrel reality that the rest of you have wised up and adopted. The ethos of remorseless predation as national ideal is not one any decent person can applaud.

1) He had been handed a recession, 2) Followed by the worst attack on this country in history3) Which closed down the airline industry and paralyzed much of the economy with fear4) This accelerated the huge Dow drop that started a year before he took office and dropped it to below 8K.5)He inherited a downsized military that was not prepared.

Within a couple years, that was all reversed and the DOW neared 14K.

Then the Democrats took over congress.

Obama, was handed a declining economy too, but has had a lot less trouble thrown at him, except for inheriting that Democrat congress. So, why aren't things already well on their way to recovery. They clearly are not.

At least we fixed his inheriting that Democrat Congress for him, and I give him a lot of credit for that.

Obama's vacation is such political malpractice that it is hard to understand. I thnk he likely is already toast next year, but I doubt that he and his people yet accept that fate. The vacation sure does not help and, while he will get some help from his friends in the media, it is the kind of thing that certainly makes his political situation worse. It is the kind of event that really could stick and do lasting damage.

Obama truly appears to have an entitlement mentality that seems tone deaf to politics. Here, Michelle took a separate jet to arrive four hours early. He takes Air Force One and assorted hellicopters. Ten days? At a $50,000 per week place? I seriously doubt that he already has resigned himself to losing next year, but if not, it is hard to understand how he does not see the downside of acting like a rich rock star during these difficult times.

Sweet Irony, or a case of "You'll have to read it to find out whats in it?"

via Commentary:

Union workers called a strike after Verizon asked them to cover the price of their health care premiums. According to Verizon’s statement to employees, Obamacare tax hikes forced the company to pass on the extra cost to workers:

Under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, an excise tax will be levied on healthcare plans with very generous plan design components (so-called “Cadillac plans”). . . . This excise tax is projected to cost the company as much as $200 million in 2018 when the tax is imposed; however, Verizon is required to account for this cost now. Accordingly, we will need to modify plan designs to avoid the impact of this tax.

Now union workers, who campaigned in favor of Obamacare just a few years ago, are ironically finding themselves victims of its policies

Not that I support Obamneycare--I don't--but I'd have to accuse you of lying if I didn't suspect you're probably actually stupid enough to believe your own statement

Job growth, prior to passage, small, but it was there…post passage anemic to non-existent…Obama had more contributors one month than new jobs created. The die-off is almost EXACT with passage…is that causation/correlation/bad luck? But there IS empirical evidence supporting the case that Obamacare kills job GROWTH.

Not that I support Obamneycare--I don't--but I'd have to accuse you of lying if I didn't suspect you're probably actually stupid enough to believe your own statement."

What's hard to understand about it? Obamacare is a major hindrance to hiring someone, and was predicted to slow hiring. And indeed hiring came to a halt as soon as Obamacare was signed into law and has not really improved since then.

Your reply is 'you're a stupid liar!' and that's pathetic. The explanations for why Obamacare will keep unemployment high are legion, so you must have been deliberately avoiding this information if you think I just made that up.

Urkel can go fuck himself at this point. If he had booked himself a ticket to pluto it would have been better. Just keep this fucking fool away from this country and away from this economy for as long as possible. He makes Bush look like a god damned genius. Fucking Bubba Urkel.

"Right now, this week, the President can stomp on the NLRB and allow Boeing's SC plant opening to proceed. He can comply with multiple judicial orders to restart the permitting process for oil/gas exploration/production. He can agree repeal both the individual mandate and the guaranteed issue provisions of Obamacare."

Add giving Exxon their requested lease extension on the billion barrel oil find in the Gulf of Mexico, rather than tieing it in court for years. And build the pipeline so Canada can sell us their oil sands production.

Seriously, this Administration can't figure out why the economy is moribund?

And remember where most jobs come from: small business. Not government, and not crony level massive corporations like GE that can get waivers.

That's why Obamacare coincided with job creation shrinking from 70k per month to 7k per month.

It wasn't really a correlation. It was causation.

The huge talking point I'm hearing everywhere is that it's just luck if the economy is good or bad, having nothing to do with Obama or, cough cough, Perry, but that's totally ridiculous. The executive can completely screw up an economy by interfering, and he can save it by keeping it out of the way, which is another term for effective administration.

Would the economy be better if Mccain were president? Depends on whether you think he would have passed a Mccaincare bill. I have no idea. But Obama is responsible for the malaise today. Period.

"Obamacare is a major hindrance to hiring someone, and was predicted to slow hiring. And indeed hiring came to a halt as soon as Obamacare was signed into law and has not really improved since then."

So, show the hard data proving America's declining employment figures are subtantively a result of Obamneycare.

There are legitimate reasons to decry Obamneycare, to be sure, but to blame it for our plummeting employment rates is to sit in wonder as the magician saws the woman in half, thinking, "How come she ain't daid?!"

I'm sorry, but even allowing for snark I've GOT to go with Dark Eden here@12:04. The other crazies are just that--insane crazies--but Althouse is supposed to be one of the REALLY SMART people, right? It's a lot like handicapping in golf or handicapping by adding weight in horse-racing (the impost); more is expected of Althouse--it's not a level playing field IQ or educational-wise...thus the fall from the grace of logic and reason is comparatively greater and shocking--and therefore more rightfully deserving of scorn..

"So, show the hard data proving America's declining employment figures are subtantively a result of Obamneycare."

Why?

Job creation was predicted to plummet if Obamacare passed, and as soon as it did job creation plummeted from 70k jobs per month to 7k despite the democrat speaker promising 400k new jobs would be created.

Every major employer is begging for a waiver, explicitly saying they would hire more.

If you want to hire someone, it is simply a fact that Obamacare makes that harder to do.

And yet when I assert this case, you say I'm either a liar or stupid.

THEREFORE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU NOW.

Don't call people liars and stupid if your entire case is 'You must absolutely prove your very strong case to the satisfaction of your opponent'. That's asinine internet drama, not logic.

You painted yourself into a corner, and can't back up your claims. Yes, YOUR claims.